Opinion
Argued May 10, 1979
June 8, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Spitting on the floor — Findings by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
1. Although it may not have constituted a violation of a specific rule of his employer, spitting on the floor by an employe having been warned of the consequences of such conduct constitutes a disregard of expected behavior standards and wilful misconduct precluding receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by the employe when discharged as a result of such conduct. [301-2]
2. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review having reviewed the entire record, may properly adopt the findings of fact of the referee and need not make additional findings of its own in an appeal from the decision of the referee. [302]
Argued May 10, 1979, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., BLATT and DiSALLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2066 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Randall G. Bowers, No. B-162087.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Antonio D. Pyle, for appellant.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Claimant was employed as a laborer and drill press operator. The employer occupies four floors of a building, each floor with approximately 250 square feet and employs 70 employees. Claimant was discharged for spitting on the floor after he had been reprimanded and warned not to do so.
Not surprisingly the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, after a remand hearing, all denied benefits. We affirm.
The claimant presents two arguments. First, since the Company had rules for discipline, and not spitting on the floor was not one of them, it could not be willful misconduct to do so. Such is not the law. Under Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973), one of the criteria for determining whether action of an employee is willful misconduct, quite apart from violation of stated rules, is the disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee. See, Roebuck v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 33 Pa. Commw. 491, 382 A.2d 482 (1978). This would be especially true of obviously unsanitary actions, such as spitting, particularly after being instructed not to repeat such a loathsome act.
Claimant's other argument, that due process required the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review to make additional findings if it has a remand hearing, is equally without merit. The entire record was reviewed and it supported the findings of the referee which were adopted. Such is all that is required.
Accordingly, we will enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, June 8, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-162087, dated July 31, 1978, denying benefits is affirmed.